Atheism

[Djevv]

My bad, I saw a doco on this a while ago and could have sworn they said in it something about other animal rituals, but now that I look it up I see that this is actually unique to elephants. Still, it seems pretty spiritual to me, especially when you see footage of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence#Death_ritual

Interesting. Come to think of it I pretty sure I have heard this before.

 

[Disco08]

The doco comes on and off NatGeo or Animal Planet all the time. Well worth a watch but I can't think of the name of it now.

 

[Djevv]

The fact that humans have always had belief systems to explain the world around them and that is expressed in different and often contradictory manners is one of the more convincing arguments against the truth of any one religion. To claim the accuracy of one's religion is pretty much saying that you were extraordinarily lucky that you were born in the place and time where that religion is practiced. Wouldn't a natural tendency (for whatever reason) to belief, pattern seeking, seeing meaning in the mundane and ascribing intent to natural forces in humans be a more believable explanation?

I see in this general trend evidence that we are created beings with a natural hunger and desire to know God.

I made no claim that evolution disproves the existence of any gods. It explains something that has historically and even in modern times was/is ascribed to gods. If you want to believe in a god that works through the forces of evolution, than that is a completely different debate than the one we have been having. You have often expressed scepticism over the reality of evolution generally and specifically about common descent. This is what I have been arguing against. It is you that perceives that as a challenge to your beliefs, not anything I have said about it.

Of course I see no evidence of or requirement for a god to explain the world around me, but that is another discussion.

I think I've been saying for a few hundred pages that I don't think evolution actually constitutes evidence against God, but it may mean that the traditional interpretation of Gen 1 is flawed and/or incomplete. Don't get me wrong I am certainly skeptical about some aspects of the GEM, from a theistic POV, Plantinga is correct that it is improbable - but certainly possible. So I am an evo-agnostic. I decided several hundred pages ago the really strong traditional YEC position wasn't one I was prepared to keep defending as I consider it a non-salvation issue.

 

[Disco08]

Why is that natural rapidly declining in places? If it was a supernaturally instilled desire surely nothing would diminish it?

 

[Djevv]

Why is that natural rapidly declining in places? If it was a supernaturally instilled desire surely nothing would diminish it?

1. Sin ruins our desire to be with God. We think we are God.
2. Faith tends to decline in conditions of prosperity. You remember the scripture about camels, rich men and the eyes of needles.
3. People I think these days like to have their 'own' religion, or are superstitious, rather than traditional religion - I'm not convinced we are any less religious than we have ever been, this has just been re-directed (see points 1 and 2 above).

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I see in this general trend evidence that we are created beings with a natural hunger and desire to know God.

And it just so happens that your god is the correct one?

I think I've been saying for a few hundred pages that I don't think evolution actually constitutes evidence against God, but it may mean that the traditional interpretation of Gen 1 is flawed and/or incomplete. Don't get me wrong I am certainly skeptical about some aspects of the GEM, from a theistic POV, Plantinga is correct that it is improbable - but certainly possible. So I am an evo-agnostic. I decided several hundred pages ago the really strong traditional YEC position wasn't one I was prepared to keep defending as I consider it a non-salvation issue.

So the evidence has become convincing enough for you to change your stance on the YEC position. You have to wonder what the basis of that belief was and why your current faith-based beliefs are any more valid as a reflection of reality.

As for "improbable", on what basis do you make that claim. We have one data point and that shows the evolution of life. We really don't know how probable the emergence of life is, given the right conditions.

 

[evo]

We really don't know how probable the emergence of life is, given the right conditions.

It's a probability of 1

 

[AngryAnt]

Where did I say it was a metaphor?

OK, I've tried three(?) times now. Is Genesis to be taken literally or not?

 

[Disco08]

1. Sin ruins our desire to be with God. We think we are God.
2. Faith tends to decline in conditions of prosperity. You remember the scripture about camels, rich men and the eyes of needles.
3. People I think these days like to have their 'own' religion, or are superstitious, rather than traditional religion - I'm not convinced we are any less religious than we have ever been, this has just been re-directed (see points 1 and 2 above).

Why would any of this happen if the will to know Him was instilled in people by God himself?

 

[jayfox]

We certainly have laws against cruelty to animals. This is not based on the relationship between humans and the animal, but on recognition of their capacity to suffer (hence you don't get in trouble for pulling up the weeds!). We humans place more value in human life than that of other life (rightly or wrongly).

I do believe that the killing of animals as a food source is justified (not everyone does though) however the killing of another human as a food source is clearly a blatant infringement on their rights as another human being and in this way differs from the slaughter of livestock.

As apes, why should such rules apply? According to whom? Not me (nor you I presume).

Yeah, but if we are in fact just apes as you claim, and related to all of the other animals, then shouldn't the same laws apply to them as us as far as killing etc goes. If we are all related and humans are the same as apes then why do different laws apply to killing apes etc. (even humanely or for scientific purposes). Why are apes allowed to be locked in cages in zoo's for our pleasure, if in fact we are the same? We would never allow humans to be treated like that would we? You said "rightly or wrongly" we place more value on human life but surely if we are merely apes then it is clearly "wrongly"?

Further to this do you hold the view that some humans are more closely related to the apes than others, e.g. do you think that African Americans, due to their skin colour and features are more closely related to the apes than White Caucasians?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Yeah, but if we are in fact just apes as you claim, and related to all of the other animals, then shouldn't the same laws apply to them as us as far as killing etc goes. If we are all related and humans are the same as apes then why do different laws apply to killing apes etc. (even humanely or for scientific purposes). Why are apes allowed to be locked in cages in zoo's for our pleasure, if in fact we are the same? We would never allow humans to be treated like that would we? You said "rightly or wrongly" we place more value on human life but surely if we are merely apes then it is clearly "wrongly"?

The reality is that we are apes (not "if" as you keep saying). The reality is that we as a species (for the most part) have deemed it morally acceptable to kill/imprison apes and other animals. This is not a universally held moral belief and has changed over time (ie. the purpose of zoos has shifted more towards conservation, medical experimentation on apes is only done when there are no other alternative animal models etc etc). This moral position is not universally held and is certainly debatable and not "clearly wrong" as you say.

Further to this do you hold the view that some humans are more closely related to the apes than others, e.g. do you think that African Americans, due to their skin colour and features are more closely related to the apes than White Caucasians?

The evidence strongly suggests that humans as a species evolved in Africa and spread from their throughout the world, not individual evolution events in different parts of the world. So to answer your question, no, all humans are equally related to apes.

On another point, asking such a question does reveal stark ignorance of evolutionary theory, even at the most basic level. Clearly you have dismissed the theory without even bothering to look at it.

 

[AngryAnt]

On another point, asking such a question does reveal stark ignorance of evolutionary theory, even at the most basic level. Clearly you have dismissed the theory without even bothering to look at it.

Worse than that, it seems to be an attempt to play the race card in order to discredit evolutionary theory.

 

[jayfox]

Worse than that, it seems to be an attempt to play the race card in order to discredit evolutionary theory.

Charles Darwin himself claimed that Black people were closer to the apes than white people, not me. Why is it an issue when I ask PT that question as well? I was unsure of his stance on it and so I asked. If I was up in arms about every question I thought was ridiculous then you may not get a question answered.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Charles Darwin himself claimed that Black people were closer to the apes than white people, not me. Why is it an issue when I ask PT that question as well? I was unsure of his stance on it and so I asked. If I was up in arms about every question I thought was ridiculous then you may not get a question answered.

Can you please reference your claims, misquoting and quote mining is the love child of the intellecutally dishonest. Certainly Darwin viewed other races as inferior or 'savages', as was the norm in the society he lived in. He was quite liberal in his views on the topic though, for the time (Darwin, Charles. 1913. Voyage Round the World of H.M.S. Beagle, 11th ed. London, John Murray).

If anything an understanding of evolution greatly reduces racism as it reveals the close relationship between all humans and the flimsy basis of what we call 'race'.

Christianity has a rich history in racism, what is your stance on that?

 

[jayfox]

Can you please reference your claims, misquoting and quote mining is the love child of the intellecutally dishonest.

Then, by your standards, most of the atheists on this thread are intellectually dishonest because they misquote and quote mine passages from the Bible, out of context, all the time. I think there is a difference between naivety and being deliberately intellectually dishonest. And both sides could probably be equally charged with being naive. However, whilst the accusations are flying around.....

Besides, I didn't actually quote anyone but made reference to what I believe as a fact. Darwin thought that black people were more closely related to the apes. Regardless of what the ways and cultures of the times was, (that certainly doesn't cut it when we talk about OT occurences by your standards), that is what he believed and he was the founder of evolution. Is that incorrect?

Certainly Darwin viewed other races as inferior or 'savages', as was the norm in the society he lived in.

Again, this is no excuse in your eyes when talking about OT laws etc. so why is it suddenly an excuse for Darwin, especially when we are talking about 100 years ago instead of up to 6000?

If anything an understanding of evolution greatly reduces racism as it reveals the close relationship between all humans and the flimsy basis of what we call 'race'.

And Christianity says that God loves all people equally and that all people should be treated equally regardless of race.

Christianity has a rich history in racism, what is your stance on that?

I don't believe that the Bible teaches racism at all. In OT times races were punished because of their sin as a community and if any were pure they were saved, see Noah. If some people have done racist things under the name of Christianity then that is hardly the fault of God or His word, which clearly preaches against it.

 

[Rosy]

And Christianity says that God loves all people equally and that all people should be treated equally regardless of race.

If God loves all people equally why does he treat them unequally?

 

[jayfox]

If God loves all people equally why does he treat them unequally?

In what respect do you mean?

 

[Rosy]

In any respect where people are treated differently. One example would be healing some and not others, killing some and not others, allowing some to live off the fat of the land while others starve. The most obvious example for me, judging by comments on this forum, is allowing some into heaven while banishing others to hell. If there's a policy of loving all people equally there doesn't seem to be one for treating them equally.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Then, by your standards, most of the atheists on this thread are intellectually dishonest because they misquote and quote mine passages from the Bible, out of context, all the time. I think there is a difference between naivety and being deliberately intellectually dishonest. And both sides could probably be equally charged with being naive. However, whilst the accusations are flying around.....

Point out where the Bible is misquoted or quote mined. You and Djevv often speak of context, but that is an interpretation that suits your conclusions. The Bible can be read and interpreted in numerous ways, areas of historal literal truth and areas of allegory are often ascribed to different sections. Are these interpretations correct or incorrect? Who knows? What I do know is that, despite claims about your study bible, no one has the absolute answer to that question. When people quote passages from the Bible that you claim are out of context, it is best to point out how and what your evidence for an alternative explanation are (which you do from time to time). That way the evidence for your claims can be assessed.

As for naivety, don't you find it a tad arrogant to make absolute claims about a topic that you openly claim ignorance of?
As I have told you before I have read the Bible numerous times, studied it in a church group and studied it on my own. My opinions on these topics do not come from ignoring the other side or just assuming they are incorrect.

Besides, I didn't actually quote anyone but made reference to what I believe as a fact. Darwin thought that black people were more closely related to the apes. Regardless of what the ways and cultures of the times was, (that certainly doesn't cut it when we talk about OT occurences by your standards), that is what he believed and he was the founder of evolution. Is that incorrect?

What you believe is fact? That is what I was asking you to substantiate! Darwin certainly had mainstream, if not more liberal, views on ideas of race, but that was the understanding at the time. The objections you hear about the OT are due to your claims of the Bible as the literal word of God and perfect in every way! No one has made such claims about Darwin. What do his views on race have to do with the validity of his theory of natural selection? Why not point out the flaws in the theory?

BTW Charles Darwin did not 'found' evolution, it was postulated long before he came along, his role and the reason he has gone down in history as one of the greatest scientific minds is that he postulated a mechanism for driving evolution and substantiated that claim with substantial evidence meticulously gathered throughout his life. It is quite amazing how many of his theories and idea are still considered valid today, almost unchanged. However, our understanding of evolution is far greater than in his time and has been refined and expanded since.

Again, this is no excuse in your eyes when talking about OT laws etc. so why is it suddenly an excuse for Darwin, especially when we are talking about 100 years ago instead of up to 6000?

Addressed above. I thought the Bible was perfect?

And Christianity says that God loves all people equally and that all people should be treated equally regardless of race.I don't believe that the Bible teaches racism at all. In OT times races were punished because of their sin as a community and if any were pure they were saved, see Noah. If some people have done racist things under the name of Christianity then that is hardly the fault of God or His word, which clearly preaches against it.

Treat all races equally, unless they are sinners and/or occupying promised lands? Slavery seems to be pretty acceptable too.

 

[jayfox]

In any respect where people are treated differently. One example would be healing some and not others, killing some and not others, allowing some to live off the fat of the land while others starve. The most obvious example for me, judging by comments on this forum, is allowing some into heaven while banishing others to hell. If there's a policy of loving all people equally there doesn't seem to be one for treating them equally.

In a fallen world that contains sin bad things will happen to good people. The good news is that, even though it doesn't seem that way whilst here on Earth, our time here is but the blink of an eye compared to eternity. Ask any elderly person and they will tell you that they can;t believe how quickly it has passed by. For any person who has faith, regardless of how much they suffer, there is hope for a wonderful future, with God in Heaven.

Why do people go to hell? Well, we've covered this in detail but no person ever has to go to Hell and if they do it is entirely of their own doing in deciding not to persue a relationship with God. In basic terms, God tells us that we can live in perfection with Him forever or we can live without Him and everything good that He has created. It's up to us to make the choice.